FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.

Late last Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The court did not release any opinions or orders today given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is the link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”). In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article highlighting five important Federal Circuit rulings so far in 2023;
• a blog post contemplating the idea of intellectual property rights for “AI creations”; and
• an article for discussing the impact of the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision in a patent case addressing obviousness.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, three waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a pro se and a veterans case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect I”), a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases and both addressing obviousness. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to another court, one summarily affirming a judgment, one granting a motion to remand a case, and two dismissing appeals. Additionally, the court released four summary affirmances and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to obviousness, a response brief addressing standards governing reissue, and denials of two petitions presenting questions related to definiteness and claim construction. Here are the details.